It's like the bullies make an agreement with the nerds that the bullies will only be entitled to the nerds' lunch money on Mondays. Uber comes in and says "Don't pay the bullies anything", and proceeds to beat the shit out of them.

Yes, Uber is flouting "agreed upon" rules. Yes maybe Uber is a bully too. But the real problem is that the "agreed upon" rules are terrible in most cities.

In addition to the "illegal" things uber is doing, it is also forcing the problem of existing taxi regulations to be addressed. Other ride sharing companies that are not doing illegal things (probably some that don't even exist yet) also benefit from this.

Even if Uber goes out of business due to a failed strategy of aggression, we still need to fix all these horrible taxi regulations.

The thing people are avoiding isn't "television" (video dramas, comedies, etc). The thing people are starting to avoid is "television" (getting those shows via cable companies). I don't think any predicted the death of video as a form of entertainment.

The ideal situation is for all the content creators, to still make their content, but sell it to the public over the internet, bypassing the cable companies. It is the cable companies that need to die (or just be relegated to being ISPs). They just aren't up to the task of delivering media in the 21st century. They have stopped being a distribution channel and more of a gatekeeper for old people who can't use the internet.

I don't doubt that some taxi's somewhere are run well. There just haven't been in any cities where I have used them. The last time I was in paris, I was a poor new grad and just took the subway and walked. But I certainly will think twice about using a taxi in Paris. They are the sort of people who might pull you from a car and beat you.

I am all for regulations to ensure taxis are safe, but in lots of cases it seems the taxis are pissed that they needed to spend lots of money on the right to be a taxi, and are angry that some people don't have the same costs. I would be angry too, but the solution is not to keep a broken system.

Maybe a good solution would be for the city of paris to buy all the taxi licenses back from drivers to even the playing field in terms of cost. Maybe they can issue cheaper licenses to both uber and traditional taxi drivers at a more modest price. The guy I heard on NPR yesterday was saying he had to pay 250,000 euros for his license. It seems ridiculous but you look at other cities and what the taxi medallions are worth, and it seems reasonable by comparison.

There probably was a person fitting that description (in this case it was me), but it's not that many people. I think there were like around 50 CS majors graduating on the same day as me. But seriously what are the odds that I am friends with that hypothetical person, and they let me use their transcript for this completely ridiculous purpose?

As I said, I was either going to show it or admit to bluffing if you were man enough to actually risk admitting being wrong.

But now we know you're just a pussy, and you folded. So you don't get to know if I was bluffing or not.

And this conversation is now over.

I don't have to pretend what I said was facetious in retrospect. It should be pretty apparent to anyone who is not retarded.

More importantly you seem to be trying desperately to change the subject away from direction where you are starting to become scared you might look really dumb if we keep going down it.

Fine I can understand that. You made some statements thinking they were pretty safe, but now you've been called out, and you want to just pretend you weren't.

Am I lying? I claim to have pretty convincing evidence that I am telling the truth. Obviously I could just be lying about that too.

A bolder man might just call my bluff and win the argument, or maybe even admit he was wrong if I am not bluffing.

If you want to just be a pussy and walk away from an opportunity to see if I actually have the document I say I do, that's fine.

My goal was to find out what kind of man you are. "A dumb man", "A pussy", or "A smart man" (if I am bluffing).

And regardless of what you choose, we will know the answer to that question.

Honestly this is starting to get boring. I will give you one more opportunity to call my bluff. If you do, I will produce the documents or admit I was bluffing. If not, you can fold, and this conversation is over and you can go on wondering forever. (e.g. like a poker game)

If you do decide to pussy out and fold, I would like to point out once again what position you are taking.

Despite producing a transcript, showing my major and degree, from the correct university, in the correct year month and year (June 2004), and with the same name as first name as my screen name, your position is that it must be fake, and you are so sure it's fake you don't even want to see it.

If this is truly the position you want to take, then I think I have pretty much won this argument, by virtue of the fact that you are ironically believing in something based on faith rather than evidence.

I admitted that I am not 100% confident in my claimed 0.5 FP rate. I don't recall ever stating that I was 100% confident, but whatever, you seemed to think I was.

Are you willing to admit that you are not 100% confident that I am who I say I am? Or are you going to maintain 100% confidence while actively trying to avoid an opportunity to see the evidence I claim to have?

This is your one chance. What's it going to be?

This was actually meant to be facetious, because I just stated that I had only lost one real email in the past 2 years. Also if you recall I said that if I am constantly analyzing my FP rate, I am really not enjoying the convenience of spam filters.

As I said I periodically check, and haven't found a false positive in about 2 years. Is it possible I missed one in there? sure, it's possible. Is it possible I missed a thousand FP's? It's still possible and incredibly unlikely.

So yes, I don't know that my FP rate is exactly 0.5 per year, but there is pretty good evidence that it is close. This is in contrast to when spam filters were not good, and I was constantly finding legitimate emails in my spam folder after not receiving and expected message in my inbox.

But this is exactly what I am saying. You took one comment I made (facetiously) , and extrapolated it out to mean that it is impossible I could have graduated from a particular school with a particular degree.

Do you seriously not see how utterly fucking crazy this is?

So we can add "People good at statistics never make claims that are not meant to be taken as a formal statistical claim" to the list of false assumptions you have made.

So have you decided on if you want to switch from your "hedge your bets" position to "calling my bluff" or "admit you were wrong" yet?

I promise that if you decide to "call my bluff" I will either produce the document or admit I was bluffing.

Or would you just change the subject?

You have a real knack for grasping onto some small detail, making a non-sensical deduction from it, and then sticking to it regardless of any subsequent evidence.

Here's a good example (one of many)

Someone (i.e. me) makes says something that you no doubt inappropriately infer to be a formal statistical claim (and more than likely inferred the wrong claim even if it was appropriate), and from that you deduce that it is impossible that this person could have passed a statistics class from a reputable university over a decade ago.

Examples of flaws in reasoning and/or bad assumptions:

1. People knowledgeable on statistics never say unstatistician-like things.

2. It is impossible for someone bad at statistics to pass a statistics course (even though a D is technically passing)

3. One's statistical abilities never regress. (e.g. it is impossible to forget things you learned in college).

A cautious troll would have simply said "It doesn't matter where you graduated from, that doesn't imply you are proficient at anything (for all but not only the above reasons.

And honestly, that's a pretty reasonable position to hold. I know I certainly wouldn't assume someone knows what they are talking about simply because they graduated from a particular school with a particular degree.

But sadly, rather than being cautious, you called my "bluff", and took the position that there was no way I could have graduated from UCLA with a CS degree.

So I counter that I have a transcript showing details completely consistent with the claims I have made. At this point any reasonable person witnessing this (probably none), would accept that I am telling the truth if I could produce such a document.

Obviously it could be a really good forgery, or I could have hacked into the school computers, or I could have had a friend willing to let me use their transcript to taunt a troll on the internet AND had the foresight to correctly cite all this friend's details (like school, graduation date, major, degree, etc) days in advance, in preparation for the fraudulent transcript, or any number of implausible alternatives.

Oh and also this "friend of mine" coincidentally has the same name (my name is Brian). Or maybe I chose my screen name to be "Tsuruchi Brian" 3 years ago because I knew the day would come when I would have to impersonate my smart friend to make some random internet troll look stupid.

I suppose at this point from your point of view, it could all just be an elaborate bluff. Afterall you haven't actually seen the document yet.

I am curious what your next move is.

1. Claim UCLA is a shit school and it doesn't matter if I graduated with a CS degree from that school (oops, too late to do this)

2. Hedge your bets by saying any evidence I produce must be fake just in case I actually have it (which you have apparently tentatively chosen).

3. Call my bluff. Honestly what are the odds that I masterminded this web of deceit so perfectly? How could some flunky with such terrible statistics skills pull off such a masterful deception?

4. Admit you were wrong about one or more assumptions you made.

If you want to switch to from "hedge your bets" to "call my bluff" or :admit you were wrong", I will allow it.

Otherwise you can just be a pussy and stay in the corner you have painted yourself in.

So you are saying I logged into UCLA's system and got some else's transcript? A transcript that shows someone else who graduated from UCLA with a BS in computer science on June 18, 2014?

Not only that, but access to a ucla.edu email account?

That was convincing enough for my employer, but not for you...

What do they call it when you believe something so blindly despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary? It starts with an F

Hey so I remembered my student ID and actually got a copy of my transcript form the ucla website. It's even got a timestamp of June 15th, 2015 at 11:36 PM (about 15 minutes ago). Do you want to be proven wrong? Or would you rather not see it and live in a world of self delusion?

I also now have access to my old ucla.edu email address as well. So that's pretty cool.